It takes many, many years for a drug to go through all the necessary scientific tests before it comes to market. There are so many phases that a drug trial must undergo before it is approved by the FDA. And human trials are absolutely essential; we cannot rely on the recommendation of a mouse.

Nor can we rely on the recommendation of a human. Not even a human who has tried the drug and found it effective. It is wise to wait seven years after a drug comes to the market before you start using it. That is because no matter how rigorous a trial a drug undergoes, we can never be sure. We can never be sure about the hidden consequences. So often, after a drug has been on the market a few years, it is found to have serious side effects. Side effects so serious that they completely outweigh any beneficial effect the drug may possess.

Drugs undergo careful statistical experimentation involving double-blind studies before they are approved. Double-blind studies are the gold standard in statistical evaluations of a drug's efficacy. Double-blind is a technique where neither the patient nor the researcher knows whether the patient is receiving the drug or a placebo.

But millions of dollars are spent on coming up with new drugs and very often the drug company is under enormous pressure to provide positive results. A drug company will recoup the huge amount of money it invested investigating the drug only if the drug makes it to market.

And so although we are very likely to see a male contraceptive some day, it can be quite some time before it becomes available. The development phase takes time, and the testing phase can also be time consuming. And, as already mentioned, it is wise to wait seven years to see if the drug has any serious negative consequences for the patient. We must not forget that the number of actual users over several years is many times greater than any sample used in an experiment, no matter how large the sample size used.

And so while we wait, it is not a bad idea to use what I regard as the best contraceptive of all: gay sex. But not with your own sex. We are able to apply gay techniques to heterosexual relationships. If a heterosexual man and woman do not wish to have children, why not use a sexual technique used by gay men everywhere? A mode of intercourse proven not to lead to pregnancy. Even when used by two people of the opposite sex. Slightly painful for the woman, no doubt. But it is surely less painful than the pain of giving birth. And having a child is not just the pain at birth.

As a Family Physician, for every unexpected pregnancy, I see 100 cases of STD: HPV, Herpes and Gonorrhea being the most common. Condoms are still an "inconvenient truth" ... sorry, guys (and gals) there is no panacea here.

Such a development would return the balance of power in games of sexual relations by equally apportioning responsibility when pregnancy occurs. No plea by the male about what he was told by the female, and no deception by the female of her true intentions. This may be good for better casual sex and better for coupling people together because the notion of blame for an unwanted pregnancy is transformed into a discussion of individual responsibility resulting in a feeling of shared responsibility should pregnancy occur. Thus pregnancy becomes "our responsibility" not "your fault!" Birth rates should drop and children that are born are more likely to be wanted and not the fodder for a lifetime of controversy between the father and the mother. Put this one on the fast track.

Perhaps the issue is game theoretic. A woman has something to lose by getting pregnant and the man has less. But certainly the difference is only quantitative since the man can be sued for child support.

For a one night with a guy a barely know, I'd take the condom. For a lasting relationship, it depend of the character of the man. For one with loose dicipline, I'll take condom. For a accountant as steady as a swiss clock, it will be the pills. But of course, the first choice would be to take my own female pills and know for sure that I took them.

"A woman has something to lose by getting pregnant and the man has less. But certainly the difference is only quantitative since the man can be sued for child support."

They are quite a few guys who get tricked with the woman they thought was on pills then suddenly learn she's pregnant. Some woman do that out of pure malice, to get ditched then sue the max out of the man. Some other just forget to take the pills every now and then, so are not as unfertile as they should be.

There are quite a few men who would rather be the one in charge of the contraceptive and don't have a surprise baby very early in a relationship.

That is actually not 100% effective. Of course there is the question of rape, but it is also possible to become pregnant without penetrative intercourse if semen comes in contact with the surface of the vulva.

Our bodies are designed to reproduce; it's a system which is highly resilient and difficult to completely defuse. Not even a hysterectomy will prevent pregnancy 100% of the time.

Paragard - best investment a young sexually active woman can make. Zero hormones, zero terrifying daily pauses to reconsider whether or not you've taken your pill, zero monthly aggravating issues relating to refilling, affording or accessing prescriptions - in other words, 12 years of freedom from the tiring worries of conception. Now that the torch of these worries may be passed to men, I can only hope its not too long before a male version paragard is developed. As it is, there are enough artificial hormones leaking irrevocably into the public water supplies and environment.

A controlled descent from the current spike in human populations may now be possible. We've trebled our population this century. No amount of technology or food can keep pace with these numbers. Reliable and actual conception abatement is the only way we can wind down these numbers without a crash.

This may come as a surprise, but the issue of greater importance to the population explosion is that of infant mortality. Regardless of the availability of contraceptives, people have more children when they don't feel confident that all of them will survive. In more developed nations where infant mortality has been consistently low for more than a generation, the culture shifts on its own toward smaller families and fewer births per women. Contraceptives become more important to the issue of population control after infant mortality becomes a rarity.

The reality is that we don't have too many people living on our planet. For one thing, at the same time that the world population tripled, poverty has declined drastically, from one in three suffering from poverty in the 1970s down to one in five towards the end of the century. Yes, I would like to live in a smaller city, but that does not change the statistics I've just quoted.

Agreed. It was fashionable in the 1970s to talk about the impending doom attributable to population explosion and yet somehow innovative humanity has always figured out how to feed itself. Not uniformly, perhaps, but in general the world is better off now than it was then, and with way more people.

I am sure you meant 'Trebled' in the last century. In this century we are likely to slow down according to studies. In fact in certain regions/countries there are negative growth rates being registered which has its own ominous set of problems. The problem of over population should be addressed in a more holistic and scientific manner and not in the generic manner some countries have done. Resultantly, what happens is that the sections who should and can support more children restrain themselves whereas the ones who cannot support and nurture even a single child properly continue reproduce regardless and unhindered.

Animal rights people have milder desires. Like the desire not to have male chicks ground up alive. Generally speaking the treatment of animals is simply atrocious. And you cannot get away from these atrocities by sneering at those who want to respect the feelings of animals.

Lovely how things go from "lads often CLAIM..." to "The burden of birth control, then, rests squarely on women."

If that puny amount of "fiddling" puts them of their "mood", then maybe they weren't really very much into it to begin with. (Or, to spell it out: If that makes you droop, then you weren't really all that hard -- don't blame you near-impotence on the condom!)

And on vasectomies: The procedure itself was never much more "drastic" than inserting a spiral for women. And I hear vasectomies are also just as reversible nowadays.

Lovely, though, how casually The Economist and its correspondent display their -- and Bog, how it saddens me to have to use this "feminazi" cliché! -- display their male-privileged perspective.

LOL, Maybe they should bring back polygamy for those hip dudes: they must marry and be responsible for every woman they get pregnant and who delivers a child. Just the thought that sometime after the third wife, their toxic moods at being 'one of many', and having to pick up the horrendous expense of raising more than one family...

Actually, this is a form of empowerment for men, since we will finally be able to have a say in whether or not we conceive, unlike the current situation which is completely in control of women (with us to pay for the consequences).
Remember what happen to Boris Becker and that condom he threw carelessly in a trash?

I (as a woman btw) think you're overreacting more than just a little bit -> "Lovely, though, how casually The Economist and its correspondent display their -- and Bog, how it saddens me to have to use this "feminazi" cliché! -- display their male-privileged perspective".

Getting a vasectomy is for men one of only two contraceptive methods; whereas the spiral is one of dozens methods women can choose from.
I contraceptive pill for men will be great for everyone involved: men won't have to play second fiddle to a woman (that they might not know very well) when it comes to making the decision of whether or not they want to be a parent; and women will finally be able to share the burden of birth control with their partner.

Yes, BAqo42i2dw, sure, I agree completely that a male pill will be great. All I reacted to was the way they put the reason for the status quo in the article: "Men CLAIM that condoms are fiddly" --> All responsibility for birth control rests squarely on the shoulders of the women. Really, just because we CLAIM something?

Something has to be wrong, either with the reality of things or with the Economist's description thereof: If "condoms are fiddly" is just an unproven claim, then we shouldn't be able to get away with using such a flimsy excuse for abdicating all responsibility. If, OTOH, they are somehow objectively provable to actually be "too fiddly", then writing that it's just a thing men claim is wrong.

"Ah Beng", considering women have choices and men have responsibilities, this is simply a crock. The fact that women need to live with the consequences of the choices they make is not in any way an implication of male privilege. That just means that women - like men - are expected to have agency.

Misandy is simply the hatred of men...pleny of men hate other men (plenty of men hate themselves for that matter). So no, whether you are male/female has no bearing one whether your can be defined as misandric.

"And stop being so bleeding Yankocentric, please. The Economist is a British magazine, and its Web site is accessible from anywhere in the world."

First off, this is verging on an ad hominem argument. But beyond that, actually The Economist is not a "british magazine." Sure, it is based in Britain, but it has bureaus around the world...and I - in the US - get my weekly delivery the same as you (presumably?). Try not to be so defensive in the future....expand your mind.

I am not sure that women will be reassured by a male contraceptive pill. There is no guarantee that a man will take it. The only time a woman can be sure that she is protected is 1) when she herself assumes responsibility for it, or 2) the man in question uses a verifiable method of contraception such as a condom. Otherwise the risk for women is too great.

There is no reason for woman to trust men when it comes to birth control.

I believe the point is to reassure men more than to reassure women. Right now men have few convenient means of preventing undesired pregnancy. Each individual is responsible only to themselves when it comes to birth control. Women who don't want to get pregnant should take it upon themselves to take the necessary precautions. The same applies for men not wanting to impregnate a partner.

Most males around the globe, even in 1st world nations, are not "handed child support payments for the rest of" their lives. That's h'come:

1. Earth - including the land, air and ocean world - is dying from human overpopulation, the direct result of males not giving a tinker's dam about women and children or much of anything but 2 minutes of narcissism;

2. There are billions of orphaned offspring and other progeny living in poverty, most of whom will only continue the abusive overbreeding cycle.

3. 50% of the world needs enforced birth control; voluntary putting a raincoat on the little soldier has never worked, even to stop the spread of diseases.

What reason do we have to trust women with birth control when the financial ramifications of a child, quite frankly, fall more heavily on the man who has absolutely no say in what the women chooses to do once pregnant.

Apropos the comment of Darnellius. The original comment I made (see above) did not imply that men should not protect themselves. For both men and women birth control can be difficult to verify unless there is physical evidence confirming it. I was merely arguing that the burden of gestation and child care is so great that if a woman does not wish to get pregnant under any circumstances then she may have to assume greater (and additional) responsibility. Men should feel free to protect themselves as well.

Such a development would be no more about reassuring women as the female pill was about reassuring men - it is just personal choice/empowerment. I for one - as a man - would NEVER consider taking such a contraceptive pill. There are some things I am just not prepared to 'tamper' with unless there was a danger to my personal well-being.

Are you kidding me? You're actually comparing the trials of a man with a accidental child, to that of a womens? Not to say that men don't have it hard, but women have it so much harder, what with actually being pregnant, not being able to work, needing to look after them the entire time. The baby becomes their lives. That's so much tougher than taking away a part of your paycheck.

That it not the point I contested. You said that 'What reason do we have to trust women with birth control when the financial ramifications of a child, quite frankly, fall more heavily on the man'. I disagree with the comparison of the hardships of the two sexes in regards to pregnancy.
I also don't think that all women are free from blame from getting themselves pregnant, but to go from that to the claim you put forward would require proof before I will accept it.

The world's population is 7B not because there hasn't been a way to prevent it, but because people won't/don't use it. Giving them another way is unlikely to make a difference except to the pharma companies who sell it as "insurance". No doubt the government will require employers to pay for it as a health benefit.

I am sure you must make a point somewhere in your "Highlights", but it escapes me. Facts, though ambiguous and suspect, are not the same thing as communication or argument. More particularly, why do you think male contraception will work where female contraception hasn't?

Your comment didn't mention anything about male contraceptive. I just wanted to point out that there is a large unmet need for contraceptives; in other words, that your statement that "The world's population is 7B not because there hasn't been a way to prevent it, but because people won't/don't use it" is missing a large piece of the reality.

One very large difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals always talk about other people's needs. Conservatives talk about whether there is any demand or not. You may perceive there is a need for male contraceptives, but is there any demand? If you can't get a man to wear a 50-cent condom, do you really think he will buy a more expensive pill and remember to take it when women complain about doing the same thing?

Now, THIS should prove interesting! Coming of age in the 1950s my generation had its own method of contraception -- NEVER put people of opposite sex in the back seat of a '55 Chevy! The effort to keep us pure was supported by drive-in movies, which were alleged (I doubt it was true) to refuse to admit Nash Ramblers because their seats folded down into beds. Meanwhile, the Catholic Church announced its own version of chemical birth-control -- a St. Joseph's aspirin held tightly by the girl between her knees.

Those who grew up in the pre-Enovid era may remember a male ritual called "Praying for blood." Adolescents would lock eyes as soon as they got off the school bus in the morning with the unspoken question -- "Did you have it last night?" -- written all over the boy's face. I remember one classmate who waited outside the doorway of each of his lady friend's classrooms at the end of the period (yes, I know . . . double entendre) in the hopes that maybe "it' happened during driver's training. The standing joke was that for every rabbit sacrificed, three boys left town -- but two of them were just bragging!

In the early 1960s a sign that you and your girl friend were "friendly" within the dorm room was to hang a condom over the outside doorknob. This was pretty explicit but led to two questions. First --what the hell good would it do on a doorknob and wasn't there a misapprehension of how it worked? And, secondly, from some of the more naive girls, "What's up with the balloons?"

Then, of course, there was every boy's passionate statement, repeated as necessary: "I'll respect the HELL out of you in the morning!"

The Pill introduced a sexual revolution -- one in which many of us hoped to be hit by the stray shot. But, the whole business was biologically unfair. Girls who took the early pills were easy to identify because they often had a blotch of discoloration on their facial skin -- and, boy, did we look for that! It was as if the poor dears were forced to walk around with a Scarlet "A." More seriously, though, the females were casually ingesting powerful chemicals, the long-range impact of which were unknown. Because the Pill was so reliable and convenient women -- thanks, in part, to over-bearing pressure from their mates -- bore the entire physical risk of preventing conception.

There was a more insidious effect to the Pill. In addition to its impact on physiology there was a devastating impact on psychology. For some women (and men) this was liberating. But, it had a downside since it allowed some men to regard women as little more than human spittoons (Germaine Greer.)

Vasectomy was unknown -- simply unknown! -- fifty years ago. Later, those husbands with real concern for their wives looked into it, rather than using their spouse as a human petrie dish. One person I know well was told by his urologist that a vasectomy was no big deal -- "No more pain than a good kick in the nuts" was the exact phrase. Strangely, the MD meant this to be reassuring.

If it is now the body of men that are may now be filled with powerful hormones it is just possible that, all of a sudden, chemical contraception won't seem like such a peachy idea. After all, it was one thing for the lady to take risks with her body -- quite another for the man to face the consequences. I would think that any female worth her salt might say, "Look, Pal . . . If you think this is such a great idea, then YOU take the risk!" After all, for a half-century all the possible side-effects have been, well, one-sided. This might educate a few boys that something else is at stake besides a roll in the hay. The benefit of that, alone, could be significant for all of us.

Hormonal contraception for men has far more drastic side effects than those for women, so they aren't used. All methods being researched are non-hormonal. I'd gladly take them. Hell, even if they came with the exact side effects that women have suffered through the past 50 years, I'd gladly take them. It'll give men control over their own reproductive system and relieve them from worrying that their partners have secretly gone off the pill or simply forgot to take them. If a roll in the hay becomes just a roll in the hay with STDs as the only risk, both men and women would be better off.

Some of those STDs are a real kicker. Birthcontrol inside marriage or plain old monogomy is different than outside it, where, as the adage goes, your having sex with every other person your partner has.